Supreme Court makes it easier to sue government officials

It is rare for the Supreme Court to make it easier for plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits claiming that government officials violated their free-speech or other constitutional rights.

But that is what the justices did on Monday, in a 5-4 decision that was hailed by civil-liberties advocates as maintaining access to the courts for people who often feel left out of the judicial process. The ruling came in the case of Crawford-El v. Britton.

“This keeps the courthouse doors open to those who claim that government officials acted maliciously to violate their rights,” said Art Spitzer of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Those doors were held open grudgingly by a court that spoke of the “strong public interest” in protecting government officials from frivolous or frequent litigation.

But the majority nonetheless said there is no justification in the law “for the imposition of special burdens on plaintiffs who allege misconduct that was plainly unlawful when it occurred.” It would be up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to protect officials from lawsuits by establishing such burdens, according to the opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens.

The ruling allows Leonard Crawford-El, convicted of murder in Washington, D.C., to proceed with a lawsuit against the D.C. corrections department.

Crawford-El, an outspoken critic of prison conditions, claims prison officials retaliated against him for his views by mistreating him. He said by punishing him for exercising his First Amendment rights, the government officials violated his constitutional rights. He sued under Section 1983, a law that allows people to sue for constitutional-rights violations anyone who acts under color of state law.

But a federal appeals court, acting to free government officials from the burden of defending against such suits, ruled last year that plaintiffs would have to show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the government official acted with “unconstitutional motive.” Without such evidence, the suits could be dismissed. Formerly, that showing could be made by a preponderance of the evidence.

Such a high standard, some legal experts say, would make it almost impossible for plaintiffs to prevail against government officials.

And that goes too far, the Supreme Court ruled. Judges have adequate tools already to dismiss frivolous suits, the court noted, and any further changes should come from Congress, the majority said.

Joining Stevens in the majority were Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy wrote separately to say that while Section 1983 litigation “can illustrate our legal order at its best and its worst,” it is up to Congress, not the courts, to come up with “[f]ar-reaching solutions.”

The ACLU’s Spitzer said the ruling would be useful in a range of cases, including those brought by government employees who claim they were maliciously fired or disciplined by superiors for exercising free-speech rights.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Sandra Day O’Connor, dissented, arguing that the higher burden would have little impact on legitimate suits. For example, he said suits based on core First Amendment violations do not depend on motives, so the new standard would have no impact.

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate dissent to urge an even higher standard to prevent the tens of thousands of Section 1983 lawsuits, which he said “engage this court in a losing struggle to prevent the Constitution from degenerating into a general tort law.” Under Scalia’s standard, if defendants could show that a government official’s grounds for the official action were “objectively valid,” the suit could not go forward.

More articles related to First Amendment News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

THE EXPERTS

The First Amendment Center is an educational organization and cannot provide legal advice.

Ken Paulson is president of the First Amendment Center and dean of the College of Mass Communication at Middle Tennessee State University. He is also the former editor-in-chief of USA Today.

Gene Policinski, chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute, also is senior vice president of the First Amendment Center, a center of the institute. He is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.

John Seigenthaler founded the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.

About The First Amendment Center

We support the First Amendment and build understanding of its core freedoms through education, information and entertainment.

The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues, including freedom of speech, of the press and of religion, and the rights to assemble and to petition the government.

Founded by John Seigenthaler, the First Amendment Center is an operating program of the Freedom Forum and is associated with the Newseum and the Diversity Institute. The center has offices in the John Seigenthaler Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

The center’s website, www.firstamendmentcenter.org, is one of the most authoritative sources of news, information and commentary in the nation on First Amendment issues. It features daily updates on news about First Amendment-related developments, as well as detailed reports about U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment, and commentary, analysis and special reports on free expression, press freedom and religious-liberty issues. Support the work of the First Amendment Center.

1 For All

1 for All is a national nonpartisan program designed to build understanding and support for First Amendment freedoms. 1 for All provides teaching materials to the nation’s schools, supports educational events on America’s campuses and reminds the public that the First Amendment serves everyone, regardless of faith, race, gender or political leanings. It is truly one amendment for all. Visit 1 for All at http://1forall.us/

Help tomorrow’s citizens find their voice: Teach the First Amendment

The most basic liberties guaranteed to Americans – embodied in the 45 words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – assure Americans a government that is responsible to its citizens and responsive to their wishes.

These 45 words are as alive and important today as they were more than 200 years ago. These liberties are neither liberal nor conservative, Democratic nor Republican – they are the basis for our representative democratic form of government.

We know from studies beginning in 1997 by the nonpartisan First Amendment Center, and from studies commissioned by the Knight Foundation and others, that few adult Americans or high school students can name the individual five freedoms that make up the First Amendment.

The lesson plans – drawn from materials prepared by the Newseum and the First Amendment Center – will draw young people into an exploration of how their freedoms began and how they operate in today’s world. Students will discuss just how far individual rights extend, examining rights in the school environment and public places. The lessons may be used in history and government, civics, language arts and journalism, art and debate classes. They may be used in sections or in their entirety. Many of these lesson plans indicate an overall goal, offer suggestions on how to teach the lesson and list additional resources and enrichment activities.

First Amendment Moot Court Competition

This site no longer is being updated … And the competition itself is moving to Washington, D.C., where the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center is co-sponsoring the “Seigenthaler-Sutherland Cup National First Amendment Moot Court Competition,” March 18-19, in partnership with the Columbus School of Law, of the Catholic University of America.

During the two-day competition in February, each team will participate in a minimum of four rounds, arguing a hypothetical based on a current First Amendment controversy before panels of accomplished jurists, legal scholars and attorneys.

FIRST AMENDMENT CENTER ARCHIVES

State of the First Amendment survey reports

The State of the First Amendment surveys, commissioned since 1997 by the First Amendment Center and Newseum, are a regular check on how Americans view their first freedoms of speech, press, assembly, religion and petition.

The periodic surveys examine public attitudes toward freedom of speech, press, religion and the rights of assembly and petition; and sample public opinion on contemporary issues involving those freedoms.
See the reports.